IANAL, but site licenses are legal. Besides, if a school doesn't want a site license, they don't have to get it... they can just get individual or bulk licenses (ie pay-for-what-you-use). Those are more expensive on a copy-for-copy basis, so it's up to the schools to figure out what is best for them....
The story talks about licensing for Microsoft Office, which is available on both PC's and Macs. And site licesnses are only one of a variety of choices schools have for licensing MS software... if it makes financial sense for a school to do site-based vs individual copy licensing, they'll do that: if it doesn't make sense, they'll choose a different licensing model.
Now if this was for OS licensing, counting Macs would clearly be stupid and evil, and we all know MS is neither of those:-)
The difference between the non-profitablity of glass/plastic recycling and PC recycling is that because of the toxic metals and what not in PC's, just putting them in a landfill like you can with bottles and cans is not an option. You have to do a lot of special handling to safely dispose of PC's, and the program mentioned here is trying to come up with a fair way to fund the costs of disposal.
Sorry, folks, I'm a free market libertarian,
on
Recycle Fee For Each PC?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
but I agree with this proposal.
Why? Because even if you believe in a free market, as I do, you should recongnize that external costs (and pollution is a perfect example of an external cost) distorts the efficient operation of the markets. Given that PC disposal generates an external cost because of the problems with the toxic materials and what not, we need to come up with an efficient way to internalize the associated costs.
Now, it's true that from a market effieciency position, the best way it to charge people at disposal time, ie you pay your $25 bucks when you throw the computer away. This way, only those who dispose of PC's pay the price... those of use (present company included) who like to keep their old PC's for tinkering purposes wouldn't have to pay the disposal costs that they never incur. But, as others have pointed out, such a system is easy to circumvent and impossible to efficiently enforce. Thus, charging people to drop off computers at a recycling center is a bad idea.
What does us leave us with? Well, we could institute a recycling program funded in a way that there is no cost to drop off a PC. This is probably the best way, given the impossiblity of enforcing a pay-as-you dispose system. But setting up a system is going to cost money, so who should pay?
One way is by a general tax, so everyone in society pays for the cost of PC disposal. But, from a libertarian perspective, charing someone who never uses PCs so that those that do can get rid of them in an environmentally friendly way is very, very wrong. Let's reject this idea.
Another way to fund a recycling program is to implement an upfront charge on those who buy PC's, so the cost of such a system is born by those who use drive the purchase of computers (and thus the disposal of computers). Now, there is some unfairness here, as noted before, in that those who don't throw the PC away still bear the cost. But, we've determined that a pay-as-you-throw-it-away system won't work, so we have to come up with the next best solution. And I think a solution such as the one presented in this story is just the next best solution we need.
Remember, fellow libertarians: free markets require market efficiency, which means minimizing external costs. When you identify an external cost, devise the best mechanism you can to internalize it. Don't automatically say, aw, that's a new tax, it must be bad, so lets reject the idea. Consider what it's trying to do (and what it will actually end up doing), and then decide if it's right or wrong
I do get your point. If you were to ask me, does Microsoft REALLY mean to say that they think installing over the orginal software is illegal, I would say of course they don't REALLY mean it. They're too smart to try to make that claim, because even they would be laughed out of court.
But, if you were to ask me if this was an ACCIDENTAL misstatement on this web site, I would have to say I'm not very sure at all. The misinformation is clearly in their benefit: schools relying on this web site for information will incorrectly believe that they can't accept any PCs that don't have the pre-installed OS, which essentially locks them into a MS only solution. And when minsinformation publicly presented by a company leads to a benefit to that company, I get angry, whether the misinformation was intentionally presented or not.
They are just saying that if you give away a PC to a school you have to include the original copy of Windows with documentation and whatnot
Yes, I ageee, that's exactly what they're saying, but my point is that they're wrong. There are two situations that allow you to be in total legal compliance when you donate a computer:
1) You've bought a computer with Windows, and you haven't installed over the OS. In this case, you are required to donate the original license/software
2) You've bought a computer with Windows, and have removed the original OS, and then donated it to the school. In this case, there is no leagl requirement that the original license and software be donated as well
Microsoft's web site, oversimplified or not, incorrectly states that #2 is illeagal. Once again, the quote from their website:
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine"
It's not a requirement, you can remove the OS from the machine whenever you want. Microsoft states that you can't, that is not correct, and that was my point.
They are just saying that if you give away a PC to a school you have to include the original copy of Windows with documentation and whatnot
Yes, I ageee, that's exactly what they're saying, but my point is that they're wrong. There are two situations that allow you to be in total legal compliance when you donate a computer:
1) You've bought a computer with Windows, and you haven't installed over the OS. In this case, you are required to donate the original license/software
2) You've bought a computer with Windows, and have removed the original OS, and then donated it to the school. In this case, there is no leagl requirement that the original license and software be donated as well
Microsoft's web site, oversimplified or not, incorrectly states that #2 is illeagal. Once again, the quote from their website:
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine"
It's not a requirement, you can remove the OS from the machine whenever you want. Microsoft states that you can't, that is not correct, and that was my point.
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine"
What that says is that, according to the license aggreement, you can NEVER install over the OS on your machine. Have Windows 98, but want to upgrade to Win 2K? Buy a new computer, can't install it on your old one. Wrong, wrong, wrong... You bought the computer, you can do whatever you like with it. That's the law!
Now, under the license agreement and current law, it would be, ahem, illegal to take that Windows 98 and install it on another computer... but that's not what they're talking about here. They're saying you can't ever throw away the original OS disks and install a nice, free piece of software like Linux or whatever else you want (of course, they might make an exception if you use a nice new shiny OS from MS, how generous of them). This is just more FUD from Microsoft.
(Sounds like they can take a page from the RIAA's stance on the legality of making MP3's off of CD's you've bought and paid for)
Actually, I think authors would rather have the higher price. Look at it this way: which would you rather do:
- Sell one book for $150 that would be resold and read by a total of 10 people
- Sell 10 books that wouldn't be resold, thus each read by 1 person, for $15 buck each.
Both give you $150 in revenue, but it's clearly more expensive to print and distribute 10 copies than it is to do the same for 1 copy, thus allowing you to keep more moola in profit. This is what the authors need to figure out. When they do, they'll embrace resale markets, like most other industries do.
Slashdot Mirror
I predict there will only be a world market for 5 fuel cells in the future....
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/06/173924 4&mode=thread&tid=109
IANAL, but site licenses are legal. Besides, if a school doesn't want a site license, they don't have to get it... they can just get individual or bulk licenses (ie pay-for-what-you-use). Those are more expensive on a copy-for-copy basis, so it's up to the schools to figure out what is best for them....
Now if this was for OS licensing, counting Macs would clearly be stupid and evil, and we all know MS is neither of those :-)
Why? Because even if you believe in a free market, as I do, you should recongnize that external costs (and pollution is a perfect example of an external cost) distorts the efficient operation of the markets. Given that PC disposal generates an external cost because of the problems with the toxic materials and what not, we need to come up with an efficient way to internalize the associated costs.
Now, it's true that from a market effieciency position, the best way it to charge people at disposal time, ie you pay your $25 bucks when you throw the computer away. This way, only those who dispose of PC's pay the price... those of use (present company included) who like to keep their old PC's for tinkering purposes wouldn't have to pay the disposal costs that they never incur. But, as others have pointed out, such a system is easy to circumvent and impossible to efficiently enforce. Thus, charging people to drop off computers at a recycling center is a bad idea.
What does us leave us with? Well, we could institute a recycling program funded in a way that there is no cost to drop off a PC. This is probably the best way, given the impossiblity of enforcing a pay-as-you dispose system. But setting up a system is going to cost money, so who should pay?
One way is by a general tax, so everyone in society pays for the cost of PC disposal. But, from a libertarian perspective, charing someone who never uses PCs so that those that do can get rid of them in an environmentally friendly way is very, very wrong. Let's reject this idea.
Another way to fund a recycling program is to implement an upfront charge on those who buy PC's, so the cost of such a system is born by those who use drive the purchase of computers (and thus the disposal of computers). Now, there is some unfairness here, as noted before, in that those who don't throw the PC away still bear the cost. But, we've determined that a pay-as-you-throw-it-away system won't work, so we have to come up with the next best solution. And I think a solution such as the one presented in this story is just the next best solution we need.
Remember, fellow libertarians: free markets require market efficiency, which means minimizing external costs. When you identify an external cost, devise the best mechanism you can to internalize it. Don't automatically say, aw, that's a new tax, it must be bad, so lets reject the idea. Consider what it's trying to do (and what it will actually end up doing), and then decide if it's right or wrong
But, if you were to ask me if this was an ACCIDENTAL misstatement on this web site, I would have to say I'm not very sure at all. The misinformation is clearly in their benefit: schools relying on this web site for information will incorrectly believe that they can't accept any PCs that don't have the pre-installed OS, which essentially locks them into a MS only solution. And when minsinformation publicly presented by a company leads to a benefit to that company, I get angry, whether the misinformation was intentionally presented or not.
dahheskett sagely observed:
They are just saying that if you give away a PC to a school you have to include the original copy of Windows with documentation and whatnot
Yes, I ageee, that's exactly what they're saying, but my point is that they're wrong. There are two situations that allow you to be in total legal compliance when you donate a computer:
1) You've bought a computer with Windows, and you haven't installed over the OS. In this case, you are required to donate the original license/software
2) You've bought a computer with Windows, and have removed the original OS, and then donated it to the school. In this case, there is no leagl requirement that the original license and software be donated as well
Microsoft's web site, oversimplified or not, incorrectly states that #2 is illeagal. Once again, the quote from their website:
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine"
It's not a requirement, you can remove the OS from the machine whenever you want. Microsoft states that you can't, that is not correct, and that was my point.
They are just saying that if you give away a PC to a school you have to include the original copy of Windows with documentation and whatnot
Yes, I ageee, that's exactly what they're saying, but my point is that they're wrong. There are two situations that allow you to be in total legal compliance when you donate a computer:
1) You've bought a computer with Windows, and you haven't installed over the OS. In this case, you are required to donate the original license/software
2) You've bought a computer with Windows, and have removed the original OS, and then donated it to the school. In this case, there is no leagl requirement that the original license and software be donated as well
Microsoft's web site, oversimplified or not, incorrectly states that #2 is illeagal. Once again, the quote from their website:
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine"
It's not a requirement, you can remove the OS from the machine whenever you want. Microsoft states that you can't, that is not correct, and that was my point.
"It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine"
What that says is that, according to the license aggreement, you can NEVER install over the OS on your machine. Have Windows 98, but want to upgrade to Win 2K? Buy a new computer, can't install it on your old one. Wrong, wrong, wrong... You bought the computer, you can do whatever you like with it. That's the law!
Now, under the license agreement and current law, it would be, ahem, illegal to take that Windows 98 and install it on another computer... but that's not what they're talking about here. They're saying you can't ever throw away the original OS disks and install a nice, free piece of software like Linux or whatever else you want (of course, they might make an exception if you use a nice new shiny OS from MS, how generous of them). This is just more FUD from Microsoft.
(Sounds like they can take a page from the RIAA's stance on the legality of making MP3's off of CD's you've bought and paid for)
Actually, I think authors would rather have the higher price. Look at it this way: which would you rather do:
- Sell one book for $150 that would be resold and read by a total of 10 people
- Sell 10 books that wouldn't be resold, thus each read by 1 person, for $15 buck each.
Both give you $150 in revenue, but it's clearly more expensive to print and distribute 10 copies than it is to do the same for 1 copy, thus allowing you to keep more moola in profit. This is what the authors need to figure out. When they do, they'll embrace resale markets, like most other industries do.